WaPo quasi-retracts page-one story about Feith Iraq/AQ intel

posted at 6:49 pm on February 9, 2007 by Allahpundit

They’re calling it a “correction,” but is it really a correction if you’re quoting from an entirely different document than the one you thought you were? And your story kinda sorta hinges on which one it was?

This is a “correction” in the same way Crocodile Dundee’s knife was a knife:

Correction to This Article
A Feb. 9 front-page article about the Pentagon inspector general’s report regarding the office of former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith incorrectly attributed quotations to that report. References to Feith’s office producing “reporting of dubious quality or reliability” and that the office “was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda” were from a report issued by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in Oct. 2004. Similarly, the quotes stating that Feith’s office drew on “both reliable and unreliable reporting” to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq “that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [Intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration” were also from Levin’s report. The article also stated that the intelligence provided by Feith’s office supported the political views of senior administration officials, a conclusion that the inspector general’s report did not draw.The two reports employ similar language to characterize the activities of Feith’s office: Levin’s report refers to an “alternative intelligence assessment process” developed in that office, while the inspector general’s report states that the office “developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers.” The inspector general’s report further states that Feith’s briefing to the White House in 2002 “undercuts the Intelligence Community” and “did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence.”

Got that? The big scoop was that the Pentagon itself had concluded that Feith floated bogus intel on the links between Iraq and AQ and suggested that he’d done so at Bush/Cheney’s behest. Except the Pentagon didn’t conclude that. Anti-war Democrat Carl Levin did. The only damning quote from the IG report that doesn’t appear to have been retracted is this:

It stated that the office produced intelligence assessments “inconsistent” with the U.S. intelligence community consensus, calling those actions “inappropriate” because the assessments purported to be “intelligence products” but were far more conclusive than the consensus view…

The policy office, the summary stated, “was inappropriately performing Intelligence Activities . . . that should be performed by the Intelligence Community.”

And yet, per the Times: “According to Congressional officials [who'd read the report], Mr. Feith’s statement and the policy office’s rebuttal, the report concluded that none of the Pentagon’s activities were illegal and that they did not violate Defense Department directives.” In which case … whence the impropriety? He conducted his own investigation and came to a different conclusion than the CIA. Like Captain Ed says, I thought the left liked dissent.

So how’d they blow it so bigtime? Blame Levin. Says the Times:

Working under Douglas J. Feith, who at the time was under secretary of defense for policy, the group “developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and Al Qaeda relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers,” the report concluded. Excerpts were quoted by Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who has long been critical of Mr. Feith and other Pentagon officials.

He must have held a conference call and inadvertently read to them out of his own office’s report, not the IG’s. Sweet, sweet justice for the leakhive.

Spruiell says Chris Matthews was talking about the bogus WaPo article on “Hardball” as though it were accurate as late as 5 p.m. ET. Exit question: How vigorous should we expect news networks’ corrections to be once word gets out? Will they be a knife? Or a knife?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Hmm. News reporters getting called and read off “news” about a “falsified” Iraq/AQ linkage by a Dimocrat Senator and then reporting the information as fact, got it wrong? No! NO WAY! This is all a Rethuglican plot from Chimpy McBushitler and Carl Rove!

This tactic is one of the hallmarks of liberalism. I believe it’s in Chapter 2 of the Propagandist’s Handbook. They do it all the time: Repeat a lie often and loud enough, it becomes indistinguishable from the truth.

This tactic is one of the hallmarks of liberalism. I believe it’s in Chapter 2 of the Propagandist’s Handbook. They do it all the time: Repeat a lie often and loud enough, it becomes indistinguishable from the truth.

stonemeister on February 9, 2007 at 7:13 PM

I thought it was Chapter 1, page 2 myself, but why quibble over semantics?

Spruiell says Chris Matthews was talking about the bogus WaPo article on “Hardball” as though it were accurate as late as 5 p.m. ET. Exit question: How vigorous should we expect news networks’ corrections to be once word gets out? Will they be a knife? Or a knife?

No more than 5 minutes ago Shep just teased similarly. Once again folks, how can we do anything with such a dishonest media. The media is far more powerful than any branch of government, I’ve said this for a long time. I’m not going to get in to how the situation in Iraq is what it is because of the media and Dems again right now, but just look at what goes on constantly! The worst part? NO ONE will be held accountable, and the bogus spun story is what will stick with 90% of the folks.

It’s the bottom of the hour, time for the top of the news. A defense department review of pre-war intelligence on Iraq criticizes the Pentagon for insisting there was a clear relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. There was not. The report concludes, it was an “inappropriate conclusion”, but not an illegal one.

And by the way, haven’t we now learned from captured documents that there WAS a clear relationship?

I am learning, so it seems. I saw this story in a western Washington newspaper. I only read the first paragraph and then saw that the byline was an “AP Military Analysist.” I stopped reading right there and said that somehow the story wasn’t true. Sure enough. I guess if a story is negative on the administration, the AP will run it with gusto, facts be damned.

On MSNBC, they are still running with a front-page recommended stories-link titled Pentagon Provided ‘Dubious’ Intel. Clicking through, the headline and subhead still reflect the information that has since been corrected. If I’m reading it correctly, the body of the story still contains the erroneous information. There is a correction notice at the top, but they are counting on careful readers rather than careful reporting or careful presentation of facts.

Why doesn’t the Washington Post pull the entire article until it is corrected?

Plus, it sounds like Feith’s shop was providing analysis of the intelligence from the intelligence agencies and some in those agencies did not like their work to questioned; i.e., professional jealousies between the various factions of intelligence analysts.

From Anna N. Smith to last year’s, nay last two years’ news. The Jamil Hussein – reporting on gossip, not on substance. All these news networks, all these newspapers, all this technology, satellite, camcorders, high speed links to any corner of the globe, J-schools, internships, honing the skills, and all we get is gossip 24/7.

Not surprised, outraged. I think everyone is wondering what kind of steroids this camel is on, because it seems no amount of straws will break it’s back. This will continue to happen, day in, and day out. This is just one of those stories that hits every outlet as “top news”, and there’s no excuse for it. Lucky for the Democrats and their operatives in the media, the vast majority of the public never has a clue.

Question: Does anyone know what time the correction came out? Was it after the evening network newscasts, or at least late enough so they couldn’t make the proper changes? As I said, Shep was still reporting the bogus story at 7:31. Does anyone think that the late correction, after the news cycle, was coincidence? Most people’s news consumption is done until Monday, and weekends excentuate different types of news anyway (Sunday talk shows, etc.) This is just like the “Bush knew the levees would break” BS put out by the AP last year. They let it ride in the MSM, while the blogosphere was tearing it apart, and then late friday evening they issued what they called a “Friday night clarification”. Just an “oops”, even though their entire story was bullsh** and everyone in the country had consumed it.

You know the old saying “don’t believe everything you read”? I have a new one – Don’t believe ANYTHING you read, until you can witness multiple media outlets confirming the same thing.

True. I guess I’m more upset about the MSM handling of stuff like this. Again, how the hell can we win a war when this is the state of our media? They are constantly trying to undermine us, and if anyone thinks that all of this crap that has been going on since a few months in isn’t emboldening the terrorists, then I don’t know what to tell you. The Dems chose to politicize a war they’d made the WMD case for for 13 years about 6 months in when they saw the 2004 election only a year away, and the media has kicked it in to high gear…. worse by the day. Again, THIS crap is why the situation is what it is in Iraq. I don’t want to hear this civil war, etc. etc. The terrorists have sparked a civil war when the Dems and media made it clear that they are willing to help hand them a victory by losing the war in Washington. That’s why it gets worse around elections, why terrorists openly endorse Dem candidates, why they take credit for their victories, etc. etc. Notice that they were forced to go the “let’s start a civil war route”? That wasn’t by first choice. That was because they were getting their asses handed to them (as was noted in captured AQ letters)… They couldn’t go toe to toe with us… they were going ass to toe with us. Sure, they’d get their lucky car bomb or IED in here or there, but that wasn’t going to end the war. But practically conspire with the American media and Democratic Party to have them force us to retreat back in Washington, and force Iraqis to fight eachother to make the carnage worse… now that was a plan.

Make no mistake folks. The media and the Democratic Party are evil bastards. I’m tired of acting like there are a few bad apples or that there’s any room to correct what’s gone on with them. All I know at this point is, if we get President Hillary… WE’RE SCREWED. I may be the one using hte old liberal “I’m moving to Canada” line at that point. (Obviously there are plenty of other places, but Canada is only like an hour from here, so it’d be easier)

Retraction? Even as we speak, Greenwald is working feverishly to show that the Levin report was based on a Pentagon report or incorporated a Pentagon report, etc.

He doesn’t admit mistakes. Even when they’re not his.

Allahpundit on February 9, 2007 at 11:13 PM

At least when exposing those mistakes means taking back a cheap shot on the VastRightWingConspiracy™. Now, if the original claims came from Levin and the correction were to the Pentagon, he’d be out there with a million-candlewatt spotlight.

If you’re on the east end of the Great Lakes (or further east), I suggest you head west either before or after crossing that border. Things start getting saner west of Thunder Bay, and by the time you hit Manitoba, it will almost seem bearable.

If you’re on the east end of the Great Lakes (or further east), I suggest you head west either before or after crossing that border. Things start getting saner west of Thunder Bay, and by the time you hit Manitoba, it will almost seem bearable.

steveegg on February 9, 2007 at 11:57 PM

Thanks for the tip. Though I live in Vermont as it is, so I think I could handle just about anything Canada could throw at me… I mean we’ve had civil unions for years, we just moved the only elected socialist from the House to the Senate, VT has the highest tax per capita, we sentence child molesters to probation, our towns hold votes to impeach Bush, etc. etc. All I’m saying is that I honestly believe Hillary being elected, particularly if at the same time Dems retain majorities in both houses, it will be a sort of “beginning of the end”. The United States will be screwed, make no mistake.

Seriously, I have to take my hat off to your perseverence. We’re quickly heading toward your status here in Wisconsin, and I’m doubtful I’ll be here in another couple years. We’re home to the co-author of the McShame-Slimeroad Lieberal Protection Act (also the original Retreat-and-Defeater), the most-corrupt governor in the Union today (who got re-elected thanks in no small part to the ineptitude of the “Pubbies”), and we’re rapidly aiming to surprass you in taxation.

Wow. This gives me more respect for the Washinton Post. They now have more credibilty in my eyes. Are you paying attention AP?

Theworldisnotenough on February 9, 2007 at 7:19 PM

No, none at all. If they had any credibility, they would have been accurate before they ran this hit piece.

They issue corrections mainly with “right” subjects because they are so eager to slam the right. They don’t have to issue corrections with “left” subjects, because they either refuse, or are dragged kicking and screaming to report on it in the first place, which by that time, most know the facts anyway.

I suspect there were some furious phone calls made, with some not so subtle threats made.

Seriously, I have to take my hat off to your perseverence. We’re quickly heading toward your status here in Wisconsin, and I’m doubtful I’ll be here in another couple years. We’re home to the co-author of the McShame-Slimeroad Lieberal Protection Act (also the original Retreat-and-Defeater), the most-corrupt governor in the Union today (who got re-elected thanks in no small part to the ineptitude of the “Pubbies”), and we’re rapidly aiming to surprass you in taxation.

If only Australia hadn’t turned violently anti-gun,….

steveegg on February 10, 2007 at 12:31 AM

Ha! And would you believe I just moved back here after 5 years of living in the south? I was born and raised here and moved away for a while, but home is still home so I’m back, and it’s good living up here (clean, low crime, etc.), but ridiculously expensive, in addition to all the stuff I mentioned (civil unions before anyone, highest taxes per capita of any state in the nation, elected socialist to US Senate, etc.)

Anyway, you WI may strive to be as liberal as us, and they definitely seem headed that way… but we’ll always do something to one up ya. Last summer, probably when VT’s libs saw you guys in the rearview, the Burlington mayor tried to make the city a sanctuary for illegals (literally calling it a “sanctuary city”), at least the city council didn’t let that one fly.

But seriously, I honestly don’t consider Canada even “sane” necessarily, it’s just evidence of how screwed I honestly believe this country is, if Hillary gets elected.

In February 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency questioned the reliability of a captured top al Qaeda operative whose allegations became the basis of Bush administration claims that terrorists had been trained in the use of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, according to declassified material released by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.).

Referring to the first interrogation report on al Qaeda senior military trainer Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the DIA took note that the Libyan terrorist could not name any Iraqis involved, any chemical or biological material used or where the training occurred. As a result, “it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers,” a DIA report concluded.

Who’s Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
The Counterpoint
What a World
whatsthematterwithkansas

Full List of Blogs (32 links) »

Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web

In fact, in January 2004 al-Libi recanted his claims, and in February 2004 the CIA withdrew all intelligence reports based on his information. By then, the United States and its coalition partners had invaded Iraq.

Levin, ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he arranged for the material to be declassified by the DIA last month. At the same time that the administration was linking Baghdad to al Qaeda, he said, the DIA and other intelligence agencies were privately raising questions about the sources underlying the claims.

Since then, Levin said in an interview Friday, almost all government intelligence on whether Iraq pursued or possessed weapons of mass destruction has proved faulty. In addition to the allegation of training terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden, there were government claims that then-Iraq President Saddam Hussein had stocks of chemical and biological weapons, that he had reconstituted his nuclear weapons programs, and that unmanned airborne vehicles posed a threat, Levin said.

He said that he could not be certain that White House officials read the DIA report, but his “presumption” was that someone at the National Security Council saw it because it was sent there.

Administration officials declined to comment for this article.

Levin noted in a prepared statement that, beginning in September 2002, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet, and then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell used the alleged chemical and biological training by Baghdad as valid intelligence in speeches and public appearances to gather support for the Iraq war.

In none of the speeches or appearances was reference made to the DIA questioning the reliability of the source of the claims, Levin said. The doubts about al-Libi were contained in the DIA’s February 2002 “Defense Intelligence Terrorist Summary,”which was sent to the White House and the National Security Council and circulated among U.S. intelligence agencies.

Levin pointed specifically to an Oct. 7, 2002, speech in which the president outlined what he said was the “grave threat” from Iraq days before the House and Senate voted on a resolution giving him the authority to go to war.

“We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases,” Bush said, an assertion that was based, according to Levin, primarily on al-Libi’s material. Other less important intelligence on the training of al Qaeda members, carried in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, also came from questionable sources, Levin said.

Anyway, you WI may strive to be as liberal as us, and they definitely seem headed that way… but we’ll always do something to one up ya. Last summer, probably when VT’s libs saw you guys in the rearview, the Burlington mayor tried to make the city a sanctuary for illegals (literally calling it a “sanctuary city”), at least the city council didn’t let that one fly.

But seriously, I honestly don’t consider Canada even “sane” necessarily, it’s just evidence of how screwed I honestly believe this country is, if Hillary gets elected.

RightWinged on February 10, 2007 at 1:46 AM

We’ve got you beat; we already have an entire county (the one containing Madistan, the capital) all-but-officially-declared an illegal-alien sanctuary (not to mention a taxpayer-subsidized low-interest “mortgage” program available only to illegals thanks to the 21st-century’s Huey Long). Fortunately, the county exec who declared it such was about the only ‘Rat who lost a major election in November, barely losing out the attorney general’s race to a budding RINO who, when he was US Attorney for western Wisconsin (including Madistan), saw nothing wrong with said governor (and the budding RINO won rather handily over a very-active DA in the primary).

And I agree with you on how screwed we’d be with Hiliary in the Oval Office. I’ll go further and say that, unless we find the second coming of Ronald Reagan, we’re screwed.

Honestly, as RightWinged noted, the media is beyond redemption. They will NOT be fair and report honestly. They refuse. And it is almost to the point that those of us on the right simply can no longer tolerate their lies.

What is it going to take to get the media to tell the truth. I’ve been listening all week to the drivel about how the REPUBLICANS killed debate about the Democrat’s anti-surge bill, when in point of fact, it was the DEMOCRATS who wanted and voted for cloture (to end debate) on the bill and vote on it. The REPUBLICANS wanted not only extended debate, but debate ON COMPETING BILLS. Did the media tell the true story? Of course not.

What are we supposed to do? Drive 12 inch spikes into their skulls in this losing attempt to “get their attention” and get them to stop lying and simply tell the truth?

I am afraid that there WILL be a backlash against the media of biblical proportions. Media credibility is at an all time low right now and getting lower. At what point will the corporate owners of the broadcast media simply shut them down because their audience drops below the point of economic viability? At what point will the print media simply fold for lack of circulation. EVERY major paper (except for, I think, the WSJ) shows signs of a readership collapse. The so-called Newspaper of Record (a nonsense claim, that’s for sure) reports such a decline in profits that their brokerage partner (who is also a major shareholder) is formenting a stockowner’s rebellion to force publisher Sulzberger out.

Even guys like me who hate the current leftist “MSM” traitors with a clear and white-hot passion understand that a free AND HONEST press is necessary for a free society. The last thing that I want is a “managed” press where the government “checks for accuracy,” but that is where we might end up. Or worse.

The Usual Suspects among the European MSM, including e.g. the Guardian, have already gleefully published the original WaPo story. It fits in beautifully with their anti-war, anti-America agenda.

What are the chances that that bastion of leftist pseudo-journalism, the Guardian, will print a correction story? About the same as the chances that the leadership of the Democratic Party will cease their treacherous sedition in their amoral quest for power. In both cases, that’s a mighty small number.

Tell me really, is there really a “fake but accurate” award? There must be, because they all seem to be competing for it.

Topsecretk9 on February 9, 2007 at 7:29 PM

Yes, a small yellow notepad should be the prize for the most egregious “fake but accurate” story, it could have “The Jayson Blair Award” stamped on its cover. But maybe that wouldn’t be fair to Dan Rather.

We are at war not only with the Islmo-tards but also the Dem’s and the MSM. This is beyond the pale of treasonous attacks against our President and this country. Blatant lies of propaganda to destroy the principles and integrity of this country and our military.

I am so friggin’ pi**ed at these Bast**ds I about ready to go postal right now. Arrest them, try them and throw them the he** out of this country. NOW!

And in addition, as much as I am fermished, this whole deal should serve to remind EVERYONE don’t believe what you read from the Lib rags or the Lib senators. Levin is a scumbag and under the auspicies of the nutroots is using his position as a way to bring up impeachment hearings. Take away Conyers. They are sooooooo peeved that their god, Clinton, was bought down off his throne.